G.R. No. L-17079. January 29, 1962.
SIMPLICIA NAGTALON, movant-appellee, vs. DESIDERIO SEGUNDO, ET AL., respondents-appellants.

FACTS

A final judgment in a civil case ordered twelve defendants, including Simplicia Nagtalon, to pay damages and costs. To satisfy the total judgment debt of P3,401.00, the sheriff levied upon and sold ten parcels of land at public auction. Three of these parcels were owned exclusively by Nagtalon. The properties were sold individually, with Nagtalon’s three parcels fetching specific bids totaling P1,291.00. On the last day of the redemption period, Nagtalon tendered only P317.44 to the sheriff, representing her calculated 1/12 pro-rata share of the total purchase price plus interest, seeking to redeem her three parcels. The purchaser opposed, arguing the tender was insufficient as it did not cover the full purchase price for which her specific properties were sold.
The lower court ruled in favor of Nagtalon. It held that, based on the dispositive portion of the final judgment, the defendants’ liability was merely joint, not solidary. Consequently, Nagtalon could redeem her properties by paying only her proportionate share of the debt. The court thus ordered the sheriff to issue a certificate of redemption for her three parcels upon her tender of P317.44. The purchaser and sheriff appealed this order.

ISSUE

Whether the lower court erred in holding that Nagtalon’s tender of her pro-rata share of the judgment debt was sufficient to validly redeem her three properties sold at execution sale for a higher aggregate price.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s finding on the nature of the liability but reversed its order for redemption. The dispositive portion of a final and executory decision controls for execution. Since it ordered the defendants to pay damages without specifying solidary liability, their obligation was correctly deemed only joint. However, the rules on redemption are governed by Section 26, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court. Redemption requires the judgment debtor to pay the purchaser the amount of the purchase price, plus interest and taxes, not merely the judgment debtor’s proportionate share of the original judgment debt. Nagtalon’s tender of P317.44 was therefore legally insufficient to redeem properties sold for P1,291.00.
The Court rejected Nagtalon’s belated challenges to the execution sale’s validity, noting she did not object at the opportune time and was thus estopped. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice, the Court modified the order. It gave Nagtalon an opportunity to complete payment of the full redemption price (P1,291.00 plus 1% monthly interest) within a reasonable time. Should she fail, the sheriff was to either release the two smaller lots upon a proportional payment or return her entire deposit, as she may elect. The decision was affirmed with this modification.